Republicans Seize Momentum, Set Sights On . . . Light Bulbs?

[Moontanman]

Republicans Seize Momentum, Set Sights On . . . Light Bulbs?

 

 

The Republicans just stormed through the midterm elections, so the party obviously means serious, serious business. According to Talking Points Memo, one pressing and essential issue for Rep. Joe Barton, of Texas, is to deal with those newfangled "little, squiggly, pig-tailed" energy-saving light bulbs.

 

Apparently, the "traditional incandescent light bulb" needs protection because of its intertwining relationship with those good ol', traditional American family values. (Barton, the former chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, just happens to be the same guy who infamously apologized to BP after the Gulf spill.) Despite the incandescent bulb's obvious environmental drawbacks, defending it from dangerous government regulators is apparently just as important as fighting Obamacare, the EPA, net neutrality and radical environmentalists.

 

I am begining to really like politics...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

For reference, the original article:

 

http://www.switched.com/2010/11/12/rep-joe-barton-pig-tailed-energy-saving-light-bulbs/

 

and its source:

 

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/joe-barton-health-care-repeal-is-my-alamo.php

[jackson33]

I am begining to really like politics... [/Quote]

 

Moon; That's always good to hear, but keep in mind most everything political is arguable...

For instance "MANDITORY" use of any product, for no apparent reason, other than saving the World which might also be arguable. Some people just prefer what their use to and would like to maintain the right to use those products.

 

In typical Democrat Legislation (822 pages, US Constitution 20, including amendments) in 2007 and Bush 43 ® signed the bill. The first hit being the 100W Bulb, which everyone I know has now got a ten year supply of. By 2014 it will include all household light bulbs. For the record the alternative bulbs have been available for some time, as have most anything in those 822 pages of law.

 

Rep. John D. Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the legislation will boost the energy efficiency of "almost every significant product and tool and appliance that we use, from light bulbs to light trucks." [/Quote]

 

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=45156

[Moontanman]

Moon; That's always good to hear, but keep in mind most everything political is arguable...

 

Yes, that would be a big part of the draw, lol

[swansont]

In typical Democrat Legislation (822 pages, US Constitution 20, including amendments)

 

Bills are double-spaced with large margins, so page count isn't very meaningful as a comparison to anything other than other bills.

 

Typical? No.

 

Over the last several decades, the number of bills passed by Congress has declined: In 1948, Congress passed 906 bills. In 2006, it passed only 482. At the same time, the total number of pages of legislation has gone up from slightly more than 2,000 pages in 1948 to more than 7,000 pages in 2006. (The average bill length increased over the same period from 2.5 pages to 15.2 pages.)

http://www.slate.com/id/2225820/

 

If you pass a few several-hundred page bills, there have to be a whole lot of single-digit-pagers to keep the average at 15.

 

Democrat? No.

 

Of the 10 longest bills in the past ten years, five were written by Democrats and five were written by Republicans.

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1375-For-Bills-in-Congress-How-Long-is-Long-

[JohnB]

While you're all chuckling at the silly Republican, consider this.

 

In Australia we can't buy incandescents anymore. Using the new "Green" bulbs, well they don't really last longer than the old ones, at least that's my experience. My power bills haven't gone down, so if they save power or whatever I'm not seeing any benefit. But I DO get to pay $6.50 for a replacement bulb instead of 60 cents.

 

Quite often these wonderful ideas to "save the planet" put the most pressure and financial strain on those who are not only not overconsuming, but can least afford the extra costs. And I'm sure Phillips is just heartbroken to have its cheap competition banned and its own cheap bulbs phased out. Imagine how terrible it must be for a company to be told that they can no longer sell cheap, low profit items and they'll have to only sell expensive ones instead.

[Pangloss]

I've also heard that you can't dispose of CFLs in the usual way (landfill) because of chemicals they contain. They do last a heck of a long time, but probably not enough to make up for the cost difference. (I buy them anyway -- I really hate changing light bulbs, and I don't really give a rat's ass what's in the local landfill.)

 

But yeah I agree with John's point above, and if I had to pick the 2nd most common rallying cry for small-government conservatives following Obamacare, that would have to be it. Their point is a good one -- make us stuff we want to buy, and then you won't NEED to ban the old stuff.

[padren]

But yeah I agree with John's point above, and if I had to pick the 2nd most common rallying cry for small-government conservatives following Obamacare, that would have to be it. Their point is a good one -- make us stuff we want to buy, and then you won't NEED to ban the old stuff.

The problem is we want to buy things at artificially reduced costs that are not representative to true free market costs.

 

 

If half of bulbs in California go incandescent and the other half florescent - why does everyone pay during the rolling blackouts?

 

 

 

I am not saying incandescent bulbs are definitely more expensive than florescent ones when adjusted for real cost - but it's the fact that everything from light bulbs to carbon emissions get some sort of ideological "free pass" by conservatives that they only have liberal solutions to criticize.

 

Why don't they get in the game and try to solve the "true-cost" problem instead of just complaining that the ideological left only come up with ideologically leftish solutions?

[swansont]

"I'm not seeing the savings" isn't very rigorous.

 

The math is pretty simple. If a 100 W bulb is normally on for 4 hours a day, and you pay $.10 per kWh, that's $14.60 a year in electricity costs. If you replace it with a CFL that draws 26W (which has the same luminous output), that's $3.80, or a direct savings of more than $10, which is more than the cost of the bulb (you would also save in air conditioning, since you don't have to remove as much waste heat) Now, that's less than $1 a month per light (using these parameters) on your bill, so you might not notice it among the fluctuations. If you pay less for electricity, the savings go down (and from what I can tell, Aussie electricity rates are among the cheapest in the world). If you pay more, the savings go up.

 

Because the lighting cost less, people have a tendency to leave lights on longer. This is Jevon's paradox (though I think it's not a paradox at all, it's just simple supply and demand), but that's not really a fault of the bulbs.

 

 

The drawback is that CFLs generally have a limit on how many times you turn them on — they only make sense for lights that are on for a reasonable length of time. Incandescents are still your best bet for a closet, for example, which may only be on for a few minutes at a time. LEDs are even more efficient, last even longer and AFAIK don't suffer from the power cycling limit.

 

I've also heard that you can't dispose of CFLs in the usual way (landfill) because of chemicals they contain. They do last a heck of a long time, but probably not enough to make up for the cost difference. (I buy them anyway -- I really hate changing light bulbs, and I don't really give a rat's ass what's in the local landfill.)

 

But yeah I agree with John's point above, and if I had to pick the 2nd most common rallying cry for small-government conservatives following Obamacare, that would have to be it. Their point is a good one -- make us stuff we want to buy, and then you won't NEED to ban the old stuff.

 

That's just it though. It is cheaper, overall, to buy a CFL. And yet people resist, for arguments including the one you make here — they can't (or won't) see past the up-front pricetag. They won't do similar things, like invest in projects that will pay off in the long run. One of the first things the republicans announced was a cutback in research spending, which is much like cutting back on preventative maintenance (which we've been doing for decades now). It looks great on the bottom line, because it shows an immediate savings. The end cost is much greater, but you don't see that until later.

 

It's like arguing that you can save money on your car by never changing the oil.

[CaptainPanic]

They set sights on lightbulbs for 2 reasons:

 

1. It's a democrat plan. Beating the democrats it has greater significance than saving the light bulb.

2. They may win it. Winning is all-important in populism. Makes you look strong.

[Sisyphus]

 

 

In typical Democrat Legislation

 

 

 

1. It's a democrat plan.

 

Is there some kind of war on adjectival forms that nobody told me about? It is a Democratic plan.

 

I don't really give a rat's ass what's in the local landfill.

 

Do you give a rat's ass what's in the local groundwater, or vented into the atmosphere?

 

Their point is a good one -- make us stuff we want to buy, and then you won't NEED to ban the old stuff.

 

I completely disagree that their point is a good one. How could you not say this about any environmental law at all? "Design me a power plant so that I don't WANT to dump toxic sludge into the river, and then you won't NEED to ban it." "Design me a bird so I WANT to hunt, so then you won't NEED to ban hunting bald eagles." Come on.

 

And, by the way, I'm against banning incandescents, for various reasons. I just think that reason is absurd. Environmental law is all about externalities.

[JohnB]

I've also heard that you can't dispose of CFLs in the usual way (landfill) because of chemicals they contain.

Getting rid of a broken bulb is quite easy if you follow the correct procedure. From Energystar.

 

How should I clean up a broken fluorescent bulb?

Because CFLs contain a small amount of mercury, EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:

1. Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room

• Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.

• Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.

• Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.

2. Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces

• Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.

• Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass pieces and powder.

• Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.

• Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.

3. Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug:

• Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.

• Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.

• If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.

• Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.

4. Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding, etc.:

• If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away. Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.

• You can, however, wash clothing or other materials that have been exposed to the mercury vapor from a broken CFL, such as the clothing you are wearing when you cleaned up the broken CFL, as long as that clothing has not come into direct contact with the materials from the broken bulb.

• If shoes come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from the bulb, wipe them off with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the towels or wipes in a glass jar or plastic bag for disposal.

5. Disposal of Clean-up Materials

• Immediately place all clean-up materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area for the next normal trash pickup.

• Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.

• Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states do not allow such trash disposal. Instead, they require that broken and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.

6. Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming

• The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window before vacuuming.

• Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off and the window open for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is completed.

 

I'm sure that everybody will read and follow these instructions and there will be no long term health risks at all. Can I sell you a bridge as well?

 

Swansont, I take your point on long term costs, but lights are a small part of a power bill. What's the power rating for the transformer on your desktop? Mine is 550 watts. The stove, clothesdryer, microwave and TV? Saving even a large percentage on lights is still like getting a $100 discount on a new Jaguar.

 

The bottom line is that we are replacing something that was cheap and safe with something that is expensive and dangerous.

 

BTW, who runs 100w incandescents inside their home? Mine are all 60W or 75W, with 25W bulbs in the bathroom and toilet. So the savings are probably about 1/2 of what you think.

 

The drawback is that CFLs generally have a limit on how many times you turn them on — they only make sense for lights that are on for a reasonable length of time. Incandescents are still your best bet for a closet, for example, which may only be on for a few minutes at a time. LEDs are even more efficient, last even longer and AFAIK don't suffer from the power cycling limit.

Good points. so wouldn't the smart and reasonable thing to do be to continue with incandescents as well as the new bulbs and have a local education campaign on the best use for each light? You still get most of the savings electrically, but the consumer gets an informed choice.

 

I must add that from what I've seen around various forums and the American media, the problem with this idea is that the American "Left" is convinced that fully 50% of the population (conservatives) are actually incapable of making informed decisions.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Swansont, I take your point on long term costs, but lights are a small part of a power bill. What's the power rating for the transformer on your desktop? Mine is 550 watts. The stove, clothesdryer, microwave and TV? Saving even a large percentage on lights is still like getting a $100 discount on a new Jaguar.

At my home we have a family room with a two-story ceiling. For lighting, the ceiling originally contained 12 100-watt floodlights. Sitting to read in the family room required 1.2kW of power, and changing a lightbulb required one of those awkward fifteen-foot poles with a suction cup on the end. Switching to long-life fluorescents may have been a good idea...

[jackson33]

Rep. John D. Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the legislation will boost the energy efficiency of "almost every significant product and tool and appliance that we use, from light bulbs to light trucks."[/Quote]

 

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=45156

 

Is there some kind of war on adjectival forms that nobody told me about? It is a Democratic plan.[/Quote]

 

Sisyphus; As said earlier, the Democrat Congress proposed and passed this legislation (2007), however a Republican President BUSH, signed the bill. For all I know Dingell meant what he said and the bill will include "EVERY significant tool and appliance that we use". I doubt one of you doesn't have some electrical appliance, tool or light fixture (not adaptable to new style bulb), you would rather keep or replace at some higher cost and will not appreciate not being allowed to get repaired or replaced. It's the bureaucracy, life time members of Government and an occasional accomplice Administration, which since 1934 have been predominately Democratic...

 

Then as any Congressional Bill, enacted into law it's what come next that causes the problems. I'm sure someplace in 822 pages of regulation, some bureaucrat can find a connection to anything they want never intended in the original bill.

 

Since 1948, regulations written to fit some bill have increased from 3-4K pages per year up to year 2000 when it reached well over 25K pages per year. I'm not going to spend much time on this, but the following link, while based on another argument, gives you a good idea. A short PDF and note the last page chart, sorry I don't have a more current amount, but I know it's gone up dramatically....

 

http://mercatus.org/uploadedFiles/Mercatus/Publications/The%20Cinderella%20Constraint(1).pdf

 

 

At my home we have a family room with a two-story ceiling. For lighting, the ceiling originally contained 12 100-watt floodlights. Sitting to read in the family room required 1.2kW of power, and changing a lightbulb required one of those awkward fifteen-foot poles with a suction cup on the end. Switching to long-life fluorescents may have been a good idea... [/Quote]

 

CR; What happened to chandleries and a step ladder, but talk about a mess if you break one

while changing a bulb. If you truly want to "save the planet", I might also suggest a couple lamps and leave that 12 bulb energy user off or simply lowering the ceiling, which would save a whole lot more energy in heating/cooling that room. Kind of kidding, but the point is, choice....

[swansont]

Swansont, I take your point on long term costs, but lights are a small part of a power bill. What's the power rating for the transformer on your desktop? Mine is 550 watts. The stove, clothesdryer, microwave and TV? Saving even a large percentage on lights is still like getting a $100 discount on a new Jaguar.

 

The bottom line is that we are replacing something that was cheap and safe with something that is expensive and dangerous.

 

BTW, who runs 100w incandescents inside their home? Mine are all 60W or 75W, with 25W bulbs in the bathroom and toilet. So the savings are probably about 1/2 of what you think.

 

It adds up. The "it's a small effect, so why should I bother" inertia points to one reason legislation is enacted. One bulb or its equivalent in my example multiplied by 100 million households is a reduction of 14.6 million kWh (or 14.6 GWh). I don't know what the situation is down under, but higher efficiency computers and appliances are also tagged in the US (Energy Star)

 

I used 100 W because that's the first bulb to be affected by the US legislation, and the example of cost savings scales linearly. I assume the people here can do the math.

 

(The US legislation will not affect bulbs smaller than 40W)

[Sisyphus]

I don't know why that is all addressed to me. I was just commenting on the strange use of "Democrat" rather than "Democratic" as an adjective which I've been seeing lately. It was off-topic, I think.

[swansont]

 

Sisyphus; As said earlier, the Democrat Congress proposed and passed this legislation (2007), however a Republican President BUSH, signed the bill.

 

I believe Sisyphus's point was that if you are going to call this a Democrat plan (rather than Democratic) then you have to say Bush was a Republic president. It's a language thing.

 

edit: which he has confirmed while I was composing this.

[Pangloss]

The problem is we want to buy things at artificially reduced costs that are not representative to true free market costs.

 

 

If half of bulbs in California go incandescent and the other half florescent - why does everyone pay during the rolling blackouts?

 

 

 

I am not saying incandescent bulbs are definitely more expensive than florescent ones when adjusted for real cost - but it's the fact that everything from light bulbs to carbon emissions get some sort of ideological "free pass" by conservatives that they only have liberal solutions to criticize.

 

Why don't they get in the game and try to solve the "true-cost" problem instead of just complaining that the ideological left only come up with ideologically leftish solutions?

 

 

I agree there are costs not reflected by purchase price, but agreeing on what they are is pretty difficult to do. Such decisions should be scientific in nature and not ideological. It's not like we're running out of landfill space, and rolling blackouts are a complex problem with a number of variables.

 

 

It is cheaper, overall, to buy a CFL. And yet people resist, for arguments including the one you make here — they can't (or won't) see past the up-front pricetag.

 

I've read that CFL sales are declining so you may be right. That math sounds great, especially if you're just going to toss the CFL in the landfill and not worry about the mercury, which of course is what most people will do regardless.

 

Not that it matters. The law was signed by President Bush in 2007 and is unlikely to be repealed even if Republicans gain control.

 

 

Do you give a rat's ass what's in the local groundwater, or vented into the atmosphere?

 

Given that the worry-warts already plan to replace CFL with LED, and that people already throw much worse crap in the landfill every day? No, I'm not worried about CFL disposal.

 

That does bring up a great example of the public discourse on this, btw. Many conservatives feel that liberals shoved CFL down their throats, only belatedly discovering the mercury issue. They were pushed and prodded and pulled along from a very simple and painless situation that nobody has proved was harmful into a much more complex and likely expensive solution (once disposal is enforced, because we all know that's coming). And the tree-huggers just shrug and claim WE should have known better all along because of obscure principles like "true cost".

 

 

At my home we have a family room with a two-story ceiling. For lighting, the ceiling originally contained 12 100-watt floodlights. Sitting to read in the family room required 1.2kW of power, and changing a lightbulb required one of those awkward fifteen-foot poles with a suction cup on the end. Switching to long-life fluorescents may have been a good idea...

 

I have the same problem. I really hate getting out that pole with the suction cup, but it took a really long time for CFLs to come out in the right shape and size -- they didn't have them when I shopped for them back in 2006/2007, but I was able to get some the last time I went to the store. As soon as the last of the incandescents I stocked up on burn out I'll go to the CFLs.

 

 

I believe Sisyphus's point was that if you are going to call this a Democrat plan (rather than Democratic) then you have to say Bush was a Republic president. It's a language thing.

 

As an aside, this is a popular meme on the right, refusing to add the "-ic" to the end of Democrat. It's bad grammar, based on a feeling of usurpation by the left of the word "democratic" (with a lower-case D). It's understandable and I admit I've used it myself in the past, but now I think it's kind of pointless, really. It's like calling them "homicide bombers" instead of "suicide bombers", or "freedom fries" instead of "french fries". It just makes us look bad.

 

It also happens as a mere typo, of course.

[padren]

I agree there are costs not reflected by purchase price, but agreeing on what they are is pretty difficult to do. Such decisions should be scientific in nature and not ideological. It's not like we're running out of landfill space, and rolling blackouts are a complex problem with a number of variables.

It's very difficult to do, but whenever true-cost is raised, it's shouted down as if simply discussing a possible figure will in itself derail the entire economy and plunge us into the dark ages. The issue has to be dealt with politically because it will be politicians that have to draft solutions, although I agree science needs to play a big role. If people can actually agree on some decent rough values and then work towards their effective representation these sorts of product-bans would be obsolete.

That does bring up a great example of the public discourse on this, btw. Many conservatives feel that liberals shoved CFL down their throats, only belatedly discovering the mercury issue. They were pushed and prodded and pulled along from a very simple and painless situation that nobody has proved was harmful into a much more complex and likely expensive solution (once disposal is enforced, because we all know that's coming). And the tree-huggers just shrug and claim WE should have known better all along because of obscure principles like "true cost".

That's like complaining about flaws in the financial strategies one's spouse comes up with while at the same time refusing to even acknowledge any need for planning. In some cases, it's a fair complaint but when an entire political wing dedicates itself to pure obstructionism they pretty much loose any leg to stand on.

 

I'm not in favor of a ban on incandescent lights, but until conservatives have something to add instead of just something to oppose I cannot imagine finding their "contributions" worthwhile enough to digest. People whining that "Square One was better!" don't have a solution, and frankly it was the problems present at Square One that forced us to act and end up here at a flawed Square Two. I'm all in favor of finding the best possible "Square Three" and the sad thing is it's the sort of thing liberals and conservatives could really work together on - their differences are a strength since we need people who are both penny-wise and socially aware to deal with complex true-cost issues.

[Mr Skeptic]

As for the mercury issue, incandescent lightbulbs release far more mercury than do compact fluorescents (per lumen). For the compact fluorescent much of that mercury ends up in the landfill, for the incandescent it ends up in the atmosphere. Seems to me if mercury is the issue, then the compact fluorescents are a better choice in that respect as well.

[Pangloss]

It's very difficult to do, but whenever true-cost is raised, it's shouted down as if simply discussing a possible figure will in itself derail the entire economy and plunge us into the dark ages. The issue has to be dealt with politically because it will be politicians that have to draft solutions, although I agree science needs to play a big role. If people can actually agree on some decent rough values and then work towards their effective representation these sorts of product-bans would be obsolete.

 

Fair enough that the idea shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but frankly most of those proposals that are based on ideological concepts SHOULD be shouted down. Does California do ANYTHING that the rest of the country should absolutely do but doesn't do currently? Anything at ALL? Yet they've spent billions of dollars they don't have in an effort that in hindsight looks a lot like political correctness run amok. Multiply that by 50 and we might as well forget about EVER balancing the budget again.

 

 

That's like complaining about flaws in the financial strategies one's spouse comes up with while at the same time refusing to even acknowledge any need for planning. In some cases, it's a fair complaint but when an entire political wing dedicates itself to pure obstructionism they pretty much loose any leg to stand on.

 

I'm not in favor of a ban on incandescent lights, but until conservatives have something to add instead of just something to oppose I cannot imagine finding their "contributions" worthwhile enough to digest. People whining that "Square One was better!" don't have a solution, and frankly it was the problems present at Square One that forced us to act and end up here at a flawed Square Two. I'm all in favor of finding the best possible "Square Three" and the sad thing is it's the sort of thing liberals and conservatives could really work together on - their differences are a strength since we need people who are both penny-wise and socially aware to deal with complex true-cost issues.

 

Well, we're on the same page here.